The Tea Party Red Herring - The Unemployed

The Tea Party (and others) would like to have you, the voter, believe that the size of the United States Federal Government is too big. I could, and have argued in these pages that in many ways, they are correct. Certainly there is far too much money being spent and wasted on a number of federal projects, both black and white as well. But their focus is also in the physical size of the government, and the number of people it employs. And I have to sit back and wonder if these individuals have even thought through the issue.

The latest job numbers, release last week, indicated that mixed into the 9% unemployment rate, were 90,000 odd federal workers who lost their jobs. Now most of these were temporary workers hired for the census, but still, these blips are just the same as the blips we see in January when all the temporary retail workers hired for the Christmas season are dumped back into the pool of the unemployed. But I also learned this weekend that the number, often cited by the media as the unemployment number is the little number or a convenient statistic, but does not actually represent the unemployment rate, which apparently is closer to 15% than it is to 9%. And that is shocking.

What is more shocking is the Tea Party saying that the government is too big. Which begs the question, what are you going to do with all the people you are planning to fire? How are they supposed to survive, since clearly you have no intention of paying unemployment to them?

And then, there are the soldiers. Remember them? There are thousands of reservists that will be returning to the United States after years abroad and they will have to be integrated into the work force. And there are several that fall under the heading the they have a guaranteed job despite the fact that the company they worked for may not have a position for them. So does that mean the company has to fire someone else? Or bring on someone they cannot afford to pay and have no work for? The only ones who will get rich on this are the lawyers and human relations specialists that will have to sort through all the laws. And yes, I am also overlooking the medical costs that are associated with returning soldiers.

So, if you are a Tea Party candidate, just how do you plan to reduce the size of the Government and yet not add to the ranks of the unemployed. They would like to have us believe that the commercial world will pick up the slack. The truth is that unless there is a profit, and a huge profit, the commercial world will not step up to the plate. And that is why the Government is so big. Legally or not.

Politicians Should Not Live in Glass Houses

People in glass houses should not throw stones. This idiom has been around for a long time. And as we head into what can only be described as the silly season here in the United States, the glass houses are shattering left and right.

Over the weekend, Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for Governor found her glass house coming down around her ears as her illegal housekeeper filed papers seeking unpaid wages and mileage reimbursements. This is very similar to the unpaid taxes on nannies that brought down several presidential appointees in the late 1990s, but in this case, Whitman is running on a platform of holding employers responsible for hiring illegal immigrants.

It is political theatre of course. And something will be put on stage next showing Democratic candidate Jerry Brown in a bad light and the mud slinging will continue. The real problem though, is one of expectations.

The American people, for some bizarre reason, expect the politician running for office to be as pure as falling snow. A virgin, dressed in white with no skeletons in their closets, no change in their views over time and well read on everything from the latest study on medical ethics to the most complex economic theories. And frankly, that is farcical. Such a candidate does not, and cannot exist. Being a politician is all about charisma, deal making and dealing with the devil. In many cases at the same time.

And as long as we expect our politicians to be something more than human, we will continue to be disappointed by them, and their actions.

The Tea Party Red Herring

On Tuesday, there was a great hue and cry in the United States as the Tea Party swept to victory in a number of primary elections. The Tea Party is touting these wins and a turning point. The pundits are less sure and as a resident, I am moderately curious, so I thought I would do a little research.

First, just what is this organization that calls itself the Tea Party and what do they really stand for.

Well, oddly, it is very difficult to get a handle on them. Unlike most parties, they do not have a leader, so it is very hard to find a clearly spelled out manifesto. Searching their web site one finds things like:

Many people seem to view the Tea Party movement as nothing more than a lot of people who are angry about taxes and government spending, but it goes deeper than that for many of us. We are tired of those things, but even more importantly and to the root is the Federal government's lack of respect and conformity to the Constitution, responsibility to the people, the intended sovereigns of this country, and its intended limited purpose as a small entity to preserve our rights, not to give and take them away with epic, unrestrained power.--An Effective Tea Party

OK. Sounds a little libertarian to me. But then you listen to their candidates.

First, Christine O'Donnell, who had an epiphany and chose to live a life of chastity, according to the Daily Record. She says There's only truth and not truth. You're either very good, or evil. Pretty black and white if you ask me. She became an evangelical Christian and there is no mention of a spouse or immediate family. I do not believe this is the first time a nun has run for office...what? She isn't a nun? Hmm...chaste, life to Christ...seems like a nun to me. But she is not without sin. Seems she has back tax issues and there are questions about her collage education bona fides. I am sure these are trivial though and she has been fully vetted and will be quickly cleared up or explained away. Based on numerous official statements, she supports teaching creationism, gun rights, is opposed to abortion (at least she does not claim to be pro-life) and rejects Darwinism. None of this is a surprise, she is born again. And there is nothing wrong with that per se.

Next, Marco Rubio, the candidate in Florida. March at least has a political pedigree, with time spent in the Florida House of Representatives and is the son of Cuban exiles. So presumably, he gets it. In the interest of fairness, I will point out that he declares himself to be a Roman Catholic. From his own web site he has this to say:

candidates for office should be talking about their conservative vision for our country’s future. --Marco2010

Conservative vision?

In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson won the Republican nomination to go after the US Senate seat currently held by Russ Fiengold. He is such an unknown that the bits on his wiki page are barely dry. In a May, 2010...do I call it a press release?... columnist George Will effused about him. The most basic right, Johnson says, is the right to keep your property.. Johnson is a pro-life Lutheran, [who] will highlight Feingold's opposition to banning late-term abortions. But more importantly, Johnson feels that the real issues is the transformation of American society in a way foreshadowed in fiction. I guess I am going to have to read Atlas Shrugged to understand what he is talking about because it seems counter to what American society is. And certainly, it seems to be counter to the very fundamentals of what the Tea Party claims to stand for.

For years, the Republican party has been fighting to control the hearts and minds of the American public. Their rhetoric has been pro-Business and smaller government, at least on the surface, while underneath, they have attempted to mandate who can sleep with whom, where and under what conditions, and restrict the rights of Americans more tightly than most dictatorships, while at the same time trying to hold up the Constitution as their document of guiding principles.

Now, along comes the Tea Party, arguing for smaller government, less tax, and a society based on the Constitution.

Fine, if you want to base your rhetoric on the Constitution, perhaps you should actually read it. To begin, as was pointed out previously, the Constitution says, in article VI, Paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Further, if we are going to assume that the Constitution includes the Amendments, all of them, not just the ones you like, then we need to look closely at the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You know where I am going with this right? The Tea Party wants to argue that they are in favour of smaller Government, yet the people they are putting up for nomination would like nothing more than to enforce their religious views on those of us that have a Constitutional right to tell them to go pound sand. And this is where I lose my patience with this whole movement. This is nothing more than ultra-conservative, uber-religious people that believe the United States is a bastion of Christianity. And it is not, nor was it ever intended to be.

But let's pretend for a moment that the vast majority of the Tea Party really are opposed to big government. Maybe those same members should enumerate the ways in which big government has helped them everyday. It is a case of let he who is without sin....

The United States has some serious problems, and I am the first to tell you that the Government needs an overhaul on a number of levels. I have covered only a few of them in the years that I have been writing this blog. But if we, as Americans, are serious about holding out elected leaders accountable, should we not actually be electing leaders that know what the issues are? Talking about smaller government is not discussing the Economy. Being born-again will not help improve Health Care. Supporting gun rights does not begin to cover the tough issues of Immigration.

Unfortunately the American voter has a very limited ability to process political information. And the buzz phrases tend to penetrate more than the real issues. Until a gas line breaks, or a levee fails. And then they want to know why the Government did not do more.

This is Not a Protest, This is an Act of Hate

The pastor of a Florida church planning to burn Qurans told CNN Tuesday while the congregation plans to go through with the action to protest the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by al Qaeda, the church is "weighing" its intentions. (CNN)

When I heard about this, I almost spilled my coffee. And then, this quote:

Terry Jones, pastor of Dove World Outreach Church in Gainesville, Florida, who was interviewed on CNN's "American Morning, said the congregation is taking seriously the warning from the U.S. military that the act could cause problems for American troops.

The congregation is taking warnings from the U.S. military seriously? Might just as well toss the Constitution on the fire while you are at it.

Now, before you get up and say that they have a First Amendment right to burn the Quran, remember that under that same argument I have the same right to burn a Bible. Or the U.S. flag. That does not mean that it is right or proper. If this was an Iman in Riyadh, planning a national Bible burning day in protest of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, do you think for one moment that every government in the Western World would not be condemning the action? Or ordering sanctions? Or similar saber rattling? So what gives Mr. Jones, or is short sighted, double-speaked named congregation the right?

This smacks of a hate crime, and the United States Government needs to condemn it as strongly as they would condemn any other act of hate speech.

Mission:Accomplished?

In March of 2003, in the shadow of the attacks on New York and Washington, DC, the United States, and coalition countries invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. In August of 2010, the last military troops, primarily belonging to the United States, left the once again sovereign nation of Iraq.

With the troop withdrawal, a number of questions remain. And while these questions are different from the questions that were asked when the coalition invaded in 2003, they are no less demanding of answers. Answers that, like the questions of 2003, are still lacking.

In 2003, shortly after the invasion, the entire invasion was questioned. What, exactly were the coalition forces doing in Iraq. The party line at the time was seeking weapons of mass destruction, although a number of people believed, and still believe, that it was because of Iraq's involvement with the September 11, 2001 attacks, despite evidence to the contrary. During the early days of the invasion, a number of us, including myself, kept asking "where are [the weapons]?" And the continuing answer was "They're there, we just have to uncover them." In fact I got into several arguments with those who know that if the weapons were there, they would be splattered all over the front page of the Washington Post. Especially at that time with an election coming and positive PR being in short supply for the Bush II administration. As we now know, there never were any weapons of mass destruction.

Failing to find justification...er...weapons, the Bush II administration said they were going after the Axis of Evil. For me, that never held water. Iraq was a brutal dictatorship, no question, but so is North Korea, and they actually have nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and an unstable enough leader to actually use them. For all that Saddam Hussein was, unstable he was not.

Now, as we enter the latter part of 2010, the question of why the United States was in Iraq is seldom asked. What is asked is what has been accomplished, now that the mission is concluded. Of course, calling it a mission begs the question, because a mission implies a goal, and clearly, there never was a goal. OK, the cynics, myself included, would say the goal was to secure the Iraqi oil, but even that seems to be a half-assed effort.

So what was accomplished? Democracy was brought to the Iraqis? OK, I can support that. Unfortunately many of the soldiers that rammed democracy down the throats of the local population are coming back to a nation less democratic than when they left and while Iraq may not, in 2003, have been terribly democratic, it had a governmental structure more stable and more secure than the one that is being left behind. And then there is the infrastructure, battered by over seven years of war and guerilla actions, to where now it is barely stable enough to keep the lights on. Who is going to stand up and take responsibility for at least restoring it to pre-war levels? The United States? Nope, their job is done.

Clearly the mission, undefined and unarticulated, was known only to those that started it, if anyone knows what it is. And several generations of both American and Iraqis will have to live, not only with the death and damage, but the clean up costs, both in terms of aid to Iraq as well as to the troops that have returned broken and unable to hold normal jobs. It is these hidden costs that ten, twenty, thirty years from now we will be debating and arguing over. When the shadow of history looks back at the Iraq war and wonders why it happened. The historians might be able to better formulate, what today is a mystery for many people: What exactly was the mission? And did it really get done?

Another Crisis of Faith

Less than a year ago, I mentioned the crisis of faith I was having. A recent visit to the book store over the weekend caused me to have another one.

Over the next few weeks, most of the kids in the United States will have returned to school for the 2011 school year. Where they will be tasked, worked, instructed and very occasionally challenged.

Yet, while I walked through the book store, I saw compete sections, full of books on how to pass the test, and certainly more tests than I even thought existed, on everything from elementary Standards of Learning to graduate level entrance exams. But what baffled me is the section on test prep books was, like the section on religion, so much larger than the sections for the base knowledge that goes into the tests. The sections on Math and Science were only slightly smaller than the section on how to start a home business on Ebay. The history section was larger than most sections, yet how many of these exams actually test history to any degree? And how accurate is the testing of history? Especially in Texas?

There were plenty of dictionaries, but most were more interested in the latest video of pabulum than actually reading the story behind the movie.

We lament the degradation of the minds of our children, yet we do not demand of our education system that they actually challenge our children. They are tested, with the most basic of tests, yet cannot think rationally, challenge in a structure manner or draw a rational conclusion that can stand up to any scrutiny.

But they can tell you what Team they are on. And if you do not know what I am talking about, then you probably actually know what the impact of an increase in the Solar Wind means.

When Religion is More Important Than Governing

This morning, a retweet from one of the Fox News stations opined, out loud, if the President should not be more open about his religious position. This follows a number of surveys that indicate as many as a quarter of Americans think he is Muslim. This is probably the same group of people that think Iraq had something to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks, but I digress.

On another site, I found this interesting evaluation:

United States Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Of course, this begs the question. If the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be required then the issue is moot right?

If only it were that simple. Let's face it, most in the United States choose to hide behind the Constitution when it suits them, such as the issue of gun rights, but choose to ignore it when it is less convenient, such as the issue of being granted citizenship at birth. And those that are screaming loudest for the President to reveal his religious beliefs are those that are also most willing to shred the Constitution when it is inconvenient to their argument.

Religion is a personal issue. To make it more than that is to devalue the entire purpose of religion. Who you worship is between you and your god, and who the President worships, is completely and utterly not the business of the American people. Sadly, most seem to feel this is not the case.

Now I own AIG...

I woke up this morning to discover that I am the proud owner of an insurance company. I do not recall ever wanting to own an insurance company. For that matter, I do not recall wanting to own a brokerage house or even a mortgage company, but I find that, along with several million of my closest friends, I own them.

Now, I suppose there are some advantages to preventing the financial markets from melting completely but is this the best way to do it? And what happens with these firms next? Does the Federal Government become and insurance company "on the side?" Would this mean that every month, I could elect to have my mortgage, insurance and other bills (especially if this is a new trend in Federal direction) deducted directly from my paycheque as a routine tax deduction like FICA and income tax? Could I have it done in pretext dollars just to make filling in my income tax forms at the end of the year? Maybe this is a good thing. But I do not believe it.

Some good ideas, from North of the border

Our friends in Canada are in the throes of an election just like here in the United States. However, unlike here in the United States, where the election process has been in full swing now for close to four (or eight) years, Canada's election was called last week and will be held in October, a quick sixty days at most (the United States could take lessons).

One set of ideas being put forward by the New Democratic Party is actually quite interesting and, of course, would drive most Americans nuts. The NDP is suggesting that ATM fees be abolished and credit card rates be capped at 5% over prime. I can support both of these. The banking industry, despite the "failures" continues to make huge profits and continues to gig the average user for every hidden fee they can pile on should take note of the general distaste of the banking public for these pointless fees and usury level charges.

Now, if we can figure out some good solutions to these bizarre gas prices, we might begin to move the economy forward.

Don't waste my time

Before you sit down at your PC and either forward me a fake photo of Alaska Gov. Palin or rant about some conspiracy around said photo(s), please take 20 seconds and verify your data. Chances are, it is a FAKE.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/palin.asp

Pay Grade?

"Conservatives see her as a kindred spirit who lives her anti-abortion words in the most profound way: by giving birth to a child she knew would be born with Down syndrome. Gun owners see her as authentically one of them: a hunter with a passion for the outdoors and gun freedom." (Yahoo News)

This is not the first time I have asked this question, and I am sure it certainly will not be the last...actually there are several questions here, but let's go with the obvious one first, that being HOW can you possibly support guns and gun rights and be a parent? The logic just stupefies me. I have listened to the rants and the diatribes. Everything from "if you teach them safety they will know not to pick up a gun" to "if just one person had a gun, the carnage would not have been so bad" (yes, my tongue is only slightly in my cheek).

Let's face it, there are several things wrong with today's society that were not the case when the founding fathers set down the Second Amendment. The first is that there are no wild animals out there stalking your lively hood (in most cases). Yes, there has been the occasional report of a bear in urban areas, but you are not likely to be mauled by one. Secondly, you do not need to kill your food. The bacteria living on it is a different issue, but a gun is not going to help you there. I have also heard the argument that they are necessary "should we ever need to over throw the government." If you feel that strongly, I would not advertise it, especially if you have a security clearance as the folks at both the Department of Defense and Homeland (In)security tend to frown on the citizenry holding that Constitutionally protected (?) position.

The other question that is begged here, and really, truly is a personal one, is the whole medical ethics of bringing a child to life that is genetically flawed. I do not mean a minor glitch but Down Syndrome is Mother Nature's way of saying she goofed. Prior to even the last fifty years, a child with messed up genetics would not have survived. We can arge that "every life is precious" and "if it was your child" but there are some hard, root cause issues that have to be addressed, least of which is the costs involved and the morality and ethics of when life begins.

Obama has it right, it is above his pay grade. It is not a decision for the President of the United States to make. He is just one man. It is a decision for the country, and in this case, all of mankind to make. And anyone who thinks differently has not looked at the issue as anything more than a political statement.

The Cold War is Over? Missed the memo...

"The Cold War is over. The days of satellite states and spheres of influence are behind us." US President George W. Bush (WSJ and others)

Ummm...you will have to excuse me for saying this is little more than the pot calling the kettle black. To say that Moscow risks losing its place on the world stage is absurd. After all, the United States thinks little about its place on the world stage and continues to think little of its place. There are still troops, illegally, in not one but TWO sovereign nations.

Bush would use semantics of "democracy" and "break away state" but Iraq and Afghanistan are sovereign nations as much as Georgia is. The hypocrisy is staggering. The rhetoric would make Orwell and Aristotle spin in their graves. And if it does not make your jaw drop, then I guess the Chinese position that "Politics have no place at the Olympics" is just business as usual. The world is becoming a truly strange place.

Russia Invades, Bush Whines.

WASHINGTON (AP) - With a crisis of Cold War proportions brewing, President Bush demanded that Russia withdraw its troops from the former Soviet republic of Georgia. (WTOP)

I'm sorry, but this President hasn't got a leg to stand on. Despite him being right.

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," Bush said from the White House.

But the United States still has troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan...

The economy is ... draw your own conclusions

Bernanke: economy faces 'numerous difficulties' By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday the fragile economy is facing "numerous difficulties" including persistent strains in financial markets, rising joblessness and housing problems — despite the Fed's aggressive interest rate reductions and other fortifying steps. (Yahoo News)

Bush calls on Congress to act on housing, energy By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday the nation's troubled financial system is "basically sound" and urged lawmakers to quickly enact legislation to prop up mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Yahoo News)

Perhaps it is just me, but maybe the President and the head of the Federal Reserve Board should hire an image consultant. Or have lunch together because when the President says the financial systems is "basically sound" and the head of the Fed is saying "persistent strains," one has to begin wondering just who is telling the truth.

The business news is getting a lot of ink lately. The Dow Jones average is all over the house. Economic reports are generally less than stellar. Consumer confidence is somewhere between low and non-existent and yet we are not in a recession. Oil and thus transportation costs are up, which means there are increases in food and other goods. But there is no inflation. Real wages really have not increased in decades, most people are living so close to the margin that a minor unplanned financial issue has the potential of putting them out on the street, yet there is no real problem, everything is fine. Go about your business.

I cannot wait to here what the Treasury Secretary has to say...

More political wet dreams.

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges." (CNN)

As someone who spends a lot of my own time volunteering, I have to ask both candidates if they have looked at the issue seriously. You cannot force someone to volunteer. It actually defeats the purpose. Volunteer spirit has to come from inside the individual and the organization they are volunteering with has to be something they believe in. Otherwise, you are wasting time and money.

He also mentions easing the burden on the troops. Sounds like a veiled call to mandatory service if I was a cynic. What burden is it we are easing again? There are already billions of dollars being poured into the coffers of the Department of Defense for easing their burdens, so I am sort of at a loss for what more can be done. If your military is all volunteer and people do not want to volunteer, you have only two options. Except the limitations a smaller force puts on you or jettison the notion that it is all volunteer. There really are not any more choices.

In urban areas especially, as I have said numerous times, there is so little time left to individuals that something will suffer if they volunteer too much. Further, most volunteer groups will not accept you if you are not over 18, making many legitimate and earnest individuals ineligible to volunteer. I will keep watching this issue because I suspect, like many things, I am not as cynical as I sometimes lead myself to believe.

Bloc Quebecois having trouble raising funds

Bloc a party in search of a cause Jul 04, 2007 04:30 AM Chantal Hébert OTTAWA - As the Parti Québécois slipped to third place in the National Assembly last spring, donations to the Bloc Québécois dried up, leaving the federal sovereignist party with less than $35,000 in individual donations for the first quarter of 2007. By comparison, the seatless Green party collected four times as much from six times as many donors. (The Toronto Star)

I have not followed the news from Canada of late, but this is something that demanded my attention. I grew up and was politically aware during the 1980s when the Bloc, less formal than now, tried to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. They tried and failed, to the relief of many Canadians, not a few of them Quebecois. Over the following years, they tried a number of things to get "more rights" from the other provinces and the Federal Government for Quebec. At their popular height, they were the official opposition party, something almost unheard of.

Today, as reported in this article, they have fallen on hard times. Or perhaps the people of Quebec no longer feel they are "being taken advantage of" or "ignored" by Ottawa.

As political parties go, the Bloc is one I would not be sad to see drift into the sunset.